Tag: Format Of Production

1
Corker v. Costco Wholesale (W.D. Wash. 2020)
2
Lundine v. Gates Corp. (D. Kan. 2020)
3
Vaks v. Quinlan, et al. (District of Massachusetts, 2020)
4
Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. DR/Decision Resources, LLC d/b/a Decision Resources Group (District of Massachusetts, 2020)
5
Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al (Western District of Washington, 2020)
6
In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litig. (District of NJ, 2020)
7
8
Kamuda v. Sterigenics U.S. LLC (Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, 2020)
9
NY Machinery Inc., et al. v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly, et al (District of New Jersey, 2020)
10
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al. (District of Delaware, 2019)

Corker v. Costco Wholesale (W.D. Wash. 2020)

Key Insight:

Electronic documents should be produced in the form it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably useable form. PDF images of a spreadsheet are not a reasonably usable form due to the functional limitations. While they are readable and searchable, they cannot be sorted or filtered as an original spreadsheet can be. Spreadsheets should be produced in their native form.

A party cannot unilaterally redact a document based on relevance absent a claim of privilege. In cases where the document contains highly confidential commercial information, a protective order may be issued requiring the information not be revealed or only be revealed in a specified way, such as designating it for “counsel eyes only.”

Electronic documents should be produced in the form it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably useable form. PDF images of a spreadsheet are not a reasonably usable form due to the functional limitations. While they are readable and searchable, they cannot be sorted or filtered as an original spreadsheet can be. Spreadsheets should be produced in their native form.

A party cannot unilaterally redact a document based on relevance absent a claim of privilege. In cases where the document contains highly confidential commercial information, a protective order may be issued requiring the information not be revealed or only be revealed in a specified way, such as designating it for “counsel eyes only.”

Nature of Case: Class Action, Unfair Competition

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

Case Summary

Vaks v. Quinlan, et al. (District of Massachusetts, 2020)

Key Insight: plaintiff violated the protective order by filing a pleading attaching confidential documents

Nature of Case: employment discrimintation

Electronic Data Involved: confidential documents protected under the protective order

Keywords: protective order, confidentiality

View Case Opinion

Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. DR/Decision Resources, LLC d/b/a Decision Resources Group (District of Massachusetts, 2020)

Key Insight: enhancement of protective order to ensure heightened confidentiality of one document.

Nature of Case: breach of contract and false and misleading statements

Electronic Data Involved: confidentiality of proprietary aggregate data product

Keywords: protective order, heightened confidentiality

View Case Opinion

Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al (Western District of Washington, 2020)

Key Insight: Defendants here have not described any harm that would result from producing the guidelines and have not sought a protective order, the Court declines to find the documents so confidential that they cannot be produced

Nature of Case: bad faith and fraudulent banking

Electronic Data Involved: general discovery responses, voicemails, loan documents, loan history, and communications

Keywords: fraud, trade secrets, incomplete responses, bad faith

View Case Opinion

In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litig. (District of NJ, 2020)

Key Insight: dispute over search terms meant to identify documents

Nature of Case: environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: all discovery, search term protocol

Keywords: search term protocol, predictive coding, technology assisted review,

View Case Opinion

Kamuda v. Sterigenics U.S. LLC (Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, 2020)

Key Insight: whether a request for a specific format is an undue burden

Nature of Case:

Electronic Data Involved: documents produced in TIFF format versus native format

Keywords: undue burden, TIFF, native, cybersecurity

Identified State Rule(s): 214(b)

View Case Opinion

NY Machinery Inc., et al. v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly, et al (District of New Jersey, 2020)

Key Insight: who bears the burden of paying for translation of foreign language documents

Nature of Case: unfair competition, false advertising, defamation, false light, trade libel, and tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: foreign language documents

Keywords: foreign language, translation, machine translation, burden to pay

View Case Opinion

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al. (District of Delaware, 2019)

Key Insight: public interest in court pleadings, discovery motions shouldn’t be redacted

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: discovery pleadings

Keywords: sealing judicial record, discovery pleadings, burden to show disclosure would cause injury

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.